Filter

Vehicle hail damage question

Depends on what caused it to be totaled. I’ve seen bent frames and smelled cars that had been through floods and sold on a salvage title.
Nothing wrong with structural damage, frame or unibody, being repaired. Shops don't spend $100K plus on frame racks and measuring systems to not be able to fix that stuff. Just because a truck has a "bent frame" doesn't mean it's a total loss. Some damage exceeds repairability on a frame, in those cases that isn't the only thing damaged on the vehicle. Even when a frame isn't repairable that isn't a determining factor whether or not it's a total loss. A new frame is $6K to $10K depending on the truck and about 40 to 60 hours to swap out. If you are dealing with a $100K truck a frame swap is a no brainer if the damage exceeds repairability on the frame. Sometimes a frame gets replaced, not due to the severity of the damage, but due to the location of the damage.

With unibody vehicles, replacing structural components is much more common. Some structural components are sacrificial and designed to manage collision energy.

A lot of states have water damage thresholds that are much lower than the total loss threshold before the title gets branded. Some states do not allow water damaged vehicles to be retitled. The water damage does not have to be from a flood, any source of water can cause a title to be branded "water damaged".

B14R Heavy

What scope are you using and do you have the KRG arca rail or anything else up front?
Strike Eagle 5-25 currently but I have a G3 razor on the way. I have the arca rail right now but in hindsight I should have picked up one of the heavy versions instead of the standard. I also have a spig mount with my bipod on it.

Attachments

  • IMG_0983.jpeg
    IMG_0983.jpeg
    407.7 KB · Views: 80

Climate Change

Are you under the impression that the CO2 emitted when Mt Pinatubo erupted in 1991 is still mixed into our atmosphere? It most certainly is not the vast majority of that CO2 came back down to the Earth and embedded in the soil and oceans before the turn of the century.

You know what CO2 is still in the atmosphere? Almost the entirety of human emissions both before and after that eruption.

If you ignore that entirely however and just pretend that the CO2 in rock and ash shot out of a volcano has the same impact on our atmosphere as atomized gasses from burning petroleum or gassing methane the volume in comparison isn't hard to find:

Number of Pinatubo-equivalent eruptions equal to 2010 global anthropogenic CO2700

Humans generate 700 Pinatubos or 3500 St Helens eruptions per year. Additionally those eruptions are extremely rare occurrences.

I'm sure there are plenty of graphs that show this but I don't really think a graph is necessary. The math seems pretty straight forward.

Didn't the entirety of this whole "volcanoes produce more CO2 than humans" thing come from some Koch funded study anyways? Why would I believe Coal companies over MIT?
MIT? You mean the guys that receive government funds for geoengineering research, collaborate with NOAA who was found to have altered climate data to meet certain criteria and created the Climate Policy Center that is involved with government policymaking? That MIT?